KARUNAKARA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No.5 are said to be neighbours and cultivating their respective lands. There is a channel where the water flows adjacent to the lands of the both petitioner and respondent No.5, which is a Government land. The same was blocked by respondent No.5. The petitioner made a complaint to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, who passed an order dtd. 1/7/2020, ordering removal of the blockage. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, which has been dismissed. However, the illegal blockage is not removed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for issuance of direction to respondent No.4 to remove the obstruction caused on the water channel.

(2.) Though learned counsel for respondent No.5 prays for dismissal of the writ petition, he is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned facts.

(3.) The learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 upon instructions submits that the order passed by the Tahsildar will be given effect to and the obstruction caused to the water channel will be removed. His submission is placed on record.